4 ms·

What moral ground does the United States have for directly invading the personal communications of the leaders of its allies? Ostensibly this is all about prot

by pstuart 13y ago

What moral ground does the United States have for directly invading the personal communications of the leaders of its allies? Ostensibly this is all about protecting the itself from danger. What is the threat posed by, say, Germany?

lukev 13y ago
I'm not saying is a good thing, but that's a policy decision on what the NSA's mission should be. "whistleblowing" that it's happening doesn't really change anything.
- rpenm 13y ago
  A policy decision most Americans normally have no say in. It would never have come to public debate before the revelations.
  - timdiggerm 13y ago
    Unfortunately that's a neccessity of the nature of these policies. Are you saying the US should have nothing that isn't publically known?
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      I'd like to suggest that! We wouldn't have done 90% of the evil, pointless, counterproductive bullshit we've done since WWII, if all aspects of that bullshit had been public. And, not a single genuinely good thing we've done would have been prevented. Details of military battles could be kept secret during the battles and for a couple of years afterward, and sure we should keep demographic data about private people restricted to only those agencies that legitimately need that data, but those are the only exceptions that come to mind.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    What are you talking about? The fact of American agencies spying on the world has been well-known since at least World War II, and is the stuff of major motion pictures, etc.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      There's spying in the abstract, which is known just from the existence of intelligence organizations, and there's spying on specific targets (or everybody), which hasn't been subject to public scrutiny or debate until now. It's one thing to "know" from movies that someone is being spied on. It's another thing entirely to know from NSA documents that you and people you know are being spied on.
- neilk 13y ago
  How can you say it changes nothing, when Snowden's actions clearly are changing things? You may argue that we already knew what the NSA was doing, but specifics matter. If I have a key to your house (for emergencies), you know that in theory, I could be there every minute of the day when you aren't. But you assume that I'm not doing this. The specific knowledge that I was there, and ate the last piece of chocolate cake, changes everything. While these agencies are nominally accountable to Congress, and thus their mission is "approved", in practice, it seems they are not. Snowden's whistleblowing is a step in the direction of accountability. Also, don't think like a hacker, think like a politician. Having the information isn't a simple boolean state. There's a difference between "the information is available" and "everybody knows, and it's top of mind". Or "people have vague worries that X and Y might happen" and "X and Y is happening and it's on a grander scale than you could have conceived".
rayiner 13y ago
> What is the threat posed by, say, Germany? Well they're one of the world's major industrial powers and just a couple of generations ago they threatened to take over all of Europe. So much of the outrage over NSA spying (abroad) is predicated on this foolish idea that we live in a time outside of history, that while the West may have spent the better part of the last millennium embroiled in warfare with each other, that our generation is the first to be so enlightened as to make that unthinkable.
- pstuart 13y ago
  I'm not naive enough to think that there are no threats in the world, nor that we can trust our allies to always have our interests in mind (ignoring the fact that "our interests" is a debatable subject). They have a mountain of data already -- if they can't get a sense of what's going on from that then maybe they're not up to the task. <snark> Slightly tangential anecdata: the FBI was warned about the suspicious flight school students yet they bungled the job of stopping the 9/11 attack. So what good is this comprehensive intelligence gathering if the government can't even use it properly? </snark>
  - tptacek 13y ago
    You should be very careful with that snark, because it is widely believed by experts and, more importantly, stakeholders that what kept the USG from utilizing its intelligence to stop 9/11 was inter-agency siloing; ie, NSA and CIA not sharing information with FBI.
    - matthudson 13y ago
      > "...it is widely believed by experts and, more importantly, stakeholders..." What sources would you recommend reading to learn more about that? The 9/11 Commission Report? I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't done much reading on inter-agency relations pre-9/11. (I hope this comment doesn't read as snark, I'm genuinely interested in learning more.)
      - 13y ago
enraged_camel 13y ago
>>What is the threat posed by, say, Germany? You picked the worst example. Five years before Germany invaded Polland, Allied leaders held Hitler and Mussolini in very high regard and publicly praised their gentlemanly natures and leadership abilities.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Like Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein?

by pstuart 13y ago

lukev 13y ago

I'm not saying is a good thing, but that's a policy decision on what the NSA's mission should be. "whistleblowing" that it's happening doesn't really change anything.

rpenm 13y ago
A policy decision most Americans normally have no say in. It would never have come to public debate before the revelations.
- timdiggerm 13y ago
  Unfortunately that's a neccessity of the nature of these policies. Are you saying the US should have nothing that isn't publically known?
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    I'd like to suggest that! We wouldn't have done 90% of the evil, pointless, counterproductive bullshit we've done since WWII, if all aspects of that bullshit had been public. And, not a single genuinely good thing we've done would have been prevented. Details of military battles could be kept secret during the battles and for a couple of years afterward, and sure we should keep demographic data about private people restricted to only those agencies that legitimately need that data, but those are the only exceptions that come to mind.
- rayiner 13y ago
  What are you talking about? The fact of American agencies spying on the world has been well-known since at least World War II, and is the stuff of major motion pictures, etc.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    There's spying in the abstract, which is known just from the existence of intelligence organizations, and there's spying on specific targets (or everybody), which hasn't been subject to public scrutiny or debate until now. It's one thing to "know" from movies that someone is being spied on. It's another thing entirely to know from NSA documents that you and people you know are being spied on.
neilk 13y ago
How can you say it changes nothing, when Snowden's actions clearly are changing things? You may argue that we already knew what the NSA was doing, but specifics matter. If I have a key to your house (for emergencies), you know that in theory, I could be there every minute of the day when you aren't. But you assume that I'm not doing this. The specific knowledge that I was there, and ate the last piece of chocolate cake, changes everything. While these agencies are nominally accountable to Congress, and thus their mission is "approved", in practice, it seems they are not. Snowden's whistleblowing is a step in the direction of accountability. Also, don't think like a hacker, think like a politician. Having the information isn't a simple boolean state. There's a difference between "the information is available" and "everybody knows, and it's top of mind". Or "people have vague worries that X and Y might happen" and "X and Y is happening and it's on a grander scale than you could have conceived".

rayiner 13y ago

> What is the threat posed by, say, Germany? Well they're one of the world's major industrial powers and just a couple of generations ago they threatened to take over all of Europe. So much of the outrage over NSA spying (abroad) is predicated on this foolish idea that we live in a time outside of history, that while the West may have spent the better part of the last millennium embroiled in warfare with each other, that our generation is the first to be so enlightened as to make that unthinkable.

pstuart 13y ago
I'm not naive enough to think that there are no threats in the world, nor that we can trust our allies to always have our interests in mind (ignoring the fact that "our interests" is a debatable subject). They have a mountain of data already -- if they can't get a sense of what's going on from that then maybe they're not up to the task. <snark> Slightly tangential anecdata: the FBI was warned about the suspicious flight school students yet they bungled the job of stopping the 9/11 attack. So what good is this comprehensive intelligence gathering if the government can't even use it properly? </snark>
- tptacek 13y ago
  You should be very careful with that snark, because it is widely believed by experts and, more importantly, stakeholders that what kept the USG from utilizing its intelligence to stop 9/11 was inter-agency siloing; ie, NSA and CIA not sharing information with FBI.
  - matthudson 13y ago
    > "...it is widely believed by experts and, more importantly, stakeholders..." What sources would you recommend reading to learn more about that? The 9/11 Commission Report? I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't done much reading on inter-agency relations pre-9/11. (I hope this comment doesn't read as snark, I'm genuinely interested in learning more.)
    - 13y ago

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>What is the threat posed by, say, Germany? You picked the worst example. Five years before Germany invaded Polland, Allied leaders held Hitler and Mussolini in very high regard and publicly praised their gentlemanly natures and leadership abilities.

pstuart 13y ago
Like Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein?